ITC 2015 Mid Season Update Poll Results are In!

You are here:Home›40K›News›ITC 2015 Mid Season Update Poll Results are In!

Well, the votes have been cast, and the results are in! As always, it is surprising to see the results. We also had a record breaking response this time, 1,531 votes!

First of all, thanks to everyone that helped with this: to those that spoke out about their concerns, to those that helped me write the questions, to those that participate in the ITC and to those that voted. You are all a part of making the ITC what it is! Also, we had a clear majority on every topic. No ambiguity at all.

So, let’s get to it.

Question 1: How many detachments do you want to use in the ITC?

We brought this up again because the way I wrote the question last time, it was a bit ambiguous on the results. Sorry for that, but it was awesome to get a chance to correct course and get a clear cut answer.

Well, there you have it. 3 Detachments is the clear winner. I am happy to see this, personally, as I think 3 Detachments in the age of “Combi” or “Decurion” style detachments helps to level the playing field and provides for more creativity in list building. When 7th first rolled around, we didn’t have the diversity we do now available to all the factions though data slates, formations, etc. and it felt unfair. Now though, I feel this is a positive move for the ITC and look forward to writing some really creative lists!

Question 2: Which of the follow D Weapon damage charts would you like to use for RANGED D weapons in the ITC?

The last ITC poll voted Ranged D weapons out of the circuit mostly because of the dreaded 6 result. Time after time we see that gamers just do not like picking up their models with no interaction. While in a casual setting over beers, I could see it being fun and funny, but in the context of tournament play where you pay to go to an event, having the game decided on the lucky roll of a 6 makes the game too much Chutes and Ladders and less Chess for many gamers. However, with the introduction of D weapons into the Eldar codex, we had to react or have Eldar players unable to use a big chunk of their book, which is no fun. We offered up the options of a modified D table to keep it powerful but toned down, or to just let it ride with the full powered D.

Whew, I was relieved to see this pass. Having played a dozen games with the new Eldar, and having played vs. a lot of full strength D weapons previously, I can agree that playing with it per the BRB is not very fun. When you lose a critical unit on turn 1 due to a lucky 6, it really takes the wind out of your sails. And while yes, that can happen with normal weapons, too, the fact that you do not get to take any type of save really sucks the fun out of it. However, I must say, I was surprised at how many folks voted for the unmodified D table. I thought this one would be a blow out, actually. I would guess that that represents a number of players that have not really been exposed to it before. Or, they simply preferred that to the only alternative presented and would have liked to see some other type of modified D table. Just speculation there, of course, but either way I am happy to see this pass. The result is that D weapons are still very powerful and still useful for stopping mega-durable “Deathstar” style units, but not likely to end a game for someone on turn 1, or to make high value, single model units a liability.

Note: we have already updated the ITC list of allowed LoW and some folks will immediately wonder why a certain D equipped LoW is not yet on the list. We will slowly be adding more units as we have a chance to try them out. There are other factors to consider with many LoW other than just if they have a D weapon or not. Thanks for your patience!

Question 3: Do you want to see Come the Apocalypse (CtA) allies in the ITC?

This is another question we wanted to revisit as we asked it in a way in the last poll that resulted in a slightly ambiguous result. So, we presented it in clear terms, this time to get a clear answer. Do you want CtA allies in the ITC or not?

Same result as before. Most gamers in the ITC simply do not like the fluff breaking nature of CtA allies. I happen to agree, personally, although I voted yes to them under the condition of the next question, which we will get to. While this is a game, the fluff of the game is the coolest part of it, IMO. The aesthetics of the game and the story of the game are really important to creating a sense of immersion in it. Most ITC participants would prefer to not violate that fluff, it would appear.

Note: Does this mean your CtA army will never be allowed in an ITC style tournament? No, local events can break this rule if their community wants to, and at our bigger tournaments we also offer unrestricted events (namely our Friendly events) to those that enjoy this style of play. We won’t be seeing them in Championships format events, though, for the time being.

Question 4: If CtA allies are allowed in the ITC, how would you like them to be implemented?

While this is a moot question due to the result of the previous one, it is still interesting to see the results. We asked if CtA allies were to be accepted, how would ITC participants want to see them implemented?

A fairly dramatic response. Overwhelmingly, players want to see an effort made to maintain aesthetics. This is a hobby in addition to a game, and I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. If we are going to have fluff breaking combos, at least take the time to model and paint them to match. That is being thoughtful to your opponent in addition to providing a fun modeling project, too, and is reflected in the votes. Again, if you have a CtA allies army you have your heart set on playing, many larger ITC tournaments offer unrestricted format events, such as the 40K Friendly at the LVO so that you can put your creations on the table!

Question 5: Eldar Windrider Jetbikes currently are able to take a heavy weapon on each model in the unit. Do you think that unit should be changed to restrict the number of heavy weapons to 1 in 3?

This was certainly the most contentious question on the poll, this go around. And, the results were surprising to say the least!

Holy crap, that was close! We’ve never had a margin of victory this narrow, before. 760 said change it, 768 said leave it. 0.005% more ITC participants that voted on this issue wanted it to ride than didn’t. Wow.

So, this is telling of quite a few things. First of all, I will say from a personal perspective that I am disappointed that this came to be as I genuinely believe that while Jetbikes won’t break 40k or anything hyperbolic like that, they will be the next Wave Serpents of 40k. Now granted, while I think the 6th ed Wave Serpents were arguably more impactful, Jetbikes with Scatter Lasers will be extremely prevalent and are too points efficient. They are not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, though.

My guess is that a lot of the votes to leave Jetbikes as written came from folks who simply have not played against them, yet (or maybe feel that they aren’t so bad!). Or from those that have not played against them with all of the tricks that are yet to come as players get used to them. As with the first time we proposed a change to Invisibility and it got voted down, but later was massively voted in, it is probably due to a lack of exposure. However, the vote is what it is, so get a strategy to counter the Scat Packs, as they will be prevalent.

On the up side, this proves a number of important points. For one: those folks that are opposed to the ITC polls on the grounds that players only vote in their own self-interest should take note. Clearly, that is not the case. Gamers do not always vote simply to benefit themselves or hurt their opponents. As not everyone players Eldar, not even close to half of ITC members, we can see here that not everyone voted for their own interests. Players voted with their conscience.

Secondly, Frontline Gaming does not have the ability to sway everyone’s votes as has–humorously–been stated in the past. We present what we believe to be the correct path based on our beliefs and experiences which may sway some gamers, but players vote with their conscience as can be seen.

Question 6: Would you like to see the following change made to the stomp chart: you can always make a “Look Out, Sir!” roll in response to stomp attacks.

This has been a hot topic issue, lately and is yet another incarnation of the desire of many gamers to not simply pick models up off of the table in response to an overwhelmingly powerful attack. We’ve seen it expressed with D weapons numerous times, and we see it again with Stomps, which are potentially even more devastating.

As we’ve seen time and again, folks lean towards the more conservative side of these issues. When in melee with a model capable of Stomp Attacks, you will be able to take a LoS! roll if the models under the stomp template are able to do so, giving you some chance of surviving. This to me is a big positive as many armies can only really deal with things like Wraithknights and Imperial Knights in melee, with Power Fist or Klaw style weapons and now have at least a hope of not losing them in the process of doing what they need to do. This levels the playing field a bit.

So there you have it! The people have spoken. We look forward to another fun season of the ITC!

I think 3 detachments will be fun and people will be surprised.. I was worried too when I was attending Adepticon but with all the other rules in place it really isn’t bad and can be really fun. There will be some super common things shoe-horned into builds like Coteaz and Knights but that is par for the course!

I think you’ll see a lot of the strong armies making use of that third detachment; I know that myself as well as several of the other Frontline guys and MikhailLenin have lamented the inability to fit a third detachment into a number of armies.

It’s not an automatic given, but I think it _will_ get used by quite a few people.

Assassins, Inquisitors, Skitarii, Knights, and Allied Detachments all get a big boost when they don’t take up 50% of your limit. We’ll also see a lot more of the “small” formations (as opposed to Adamantine Lance/Firebase Cadre/etc) that aren’t eating half or more of your once you get the option to bring another detachment.

the reason you shouldnt change eldar bikes, is that i think that is the “bridge too far”. i think it goes too much to change the fundamental rules of the game. If anything, eldar bikes make the Hel-Turkey for chaos that much better.

i hope the next thing you guys do is let “decurions” function as one “detachment”

Decurion style detachments (we need to think of a better name for those) already function as one detachment. You can run a CAD, a Decurion, and an Allied detachment with the current rules. However, you cannot replicate any of the Formations in the Decurion/Blood Host/Craftworld Warhost.

I am not sure what you mean by the statement “you cannot replicate any of the formations in the decirion/blodhost/warhost” are you saying I cannot take an Aspect Host (one of the formations within a warhost) with a CAD? Or are you saying I cannot take the same formation twice (ie a CAD an two Aspect Hosts) or what?

You can’t take any formation twice, period, whether it’s in a Warhost or not.

Eldar example. If you have a Warhost, you can only have one Aspect Host as part of it per the ITC rules. You also can’t take a Warhost with an Aspect Host, and then another Aspect Host formation separately.

This doesn’t seem right. With the Craftworld Warhost, it’s specifically rigid, and designed so that you might have to take 2 guardian battlehosts to get the units you want, which is why the Craftworld Warhost detachment says to take 1-3 per detachment. Does that mean the ITC is over-riding the format of the Craftworld Warhost Detachment, and making each section of it 0-1?

Interesting results. I expected to see the CtA vote a lot closer than it was, considering all of the whining when the first poll ended. I personally voted to leave CtA in, but I’m fine with this result as well. Poor Tyranids, though.

I voted to keep Jetbikes as is, though I’m not surprised to see how close that vote was. I haven’t played against them yet, which might change my answer in the future, but I agree with your assessment: they won’t break the game, but they’re going to be the “meta-maker” of this edition. If your list can’t handle Jetbikes, you won’t make it to top tables. Which is fine, that’s how it’s always been in the past and recently. Wave Serpents, Knights, Screamerstar, T5 Multiwound Deathstars – all of these things are power units that need to be dealt with by competitive lists in one way or another.

Are Windrider Jetbikes good? Yes, probably the best Troop in the game at the moment. But, that doesn’t mean they need to be nerfed to make it easier/better for everyone else. They are able to be dealt with in a decent number of ways, but require tact to stop just like anything else that’s good. (Note: I don’t think it’s good design. GW fracked up with them, but rather than nerfing it ourselves or whining, dealing with it is better imo.)

I deliberated over the D change for a while. D is strong – and that’s the point. But, it was fine before in the context that it was only on superheavies and Gargantuans who usually were expensive enough to justify that power level, or were outright banned for having Apoc level powers that distorted regular 40k level play. The issue isn’t D itself. In the setting of “D is only for the biggest baddest things”, it’s fine. The issue is that Eldar can spam it like no one’s business, even if the Scythes take a -1 on the table.

I wonder how many people would keep the D table the same if the D weapons on Wraith units were changed back to 6th edition rules. As they are, they break the game in a much more deliberate and noteworthy way than Scatterbikes, in my opinion.

I also voted to keep jetbikes the same, despite thinking they are bullshit. I think a lot of people voted to leave them as is because we are all wary of setting a precedent of going into specific units and modifying their stats/options

I voted to keep them the same because I don’t want to start the trend of voting for what’s allowed in your opponents army. I play IK, if there was a vote, taking 3 in an army would have never passed based on the internets opinion of them when they were released.

I agree it could lead to a slippery slope, but I dont see that “Nerf” as being the end all be all of what makes that unit so good. Its not like youre taking away their turbo boost ability etc. Youre simply adjusting their offensive output, not the other 90% of what makes them a great unit.

Say you take a Tau CAD as your main force. You want a front line, so you take CSM for Typhus and Zombies. They’re Desperate Allies and not CtA, so it works. Then, you want anti-psyker, so you grab a Culexus. Again, Desperate Allies and not CtA, so it works.

However, the Assassin and the CSM detachments *are* CtA with one another, despite both having better Alliance levels with the Tau primary. Is this a valid “Tau” army or does it get restricted by the CtA rules?

Second, I feel like there’s a lot of missing variables here. I assume you didn’t have 1850 points of just Boyz and he didn’t just have 36 bikes. If that’s true, it probably wasn’t just the bikes that won the game, though I’m sure they played a large part.

Assuming you had a painboy in there, you should have gotten FNP. You could have thrown ‘Eavy Armor on a unit or two and then had Characters with better armor in there as well. I don’t think anything killing a Green Tide means it’s broken.

I’m disappointed about the response to CTA allies. Its just a kick to Xenos forces without good allies charts. I get that it ‘breaks the fluff’… But from a game perspective, CTA allies offer significantly less advantages than BBs. Is there any evidence that CTA allies were ‘breaking’ the game in the same way that other allies are?eg

There are plenty of reasons that a list doesn’t come in first at a tournament.
-You could go undefeated but have less mission points than another undefeated guy. (Only happens if you have 3 rounds with 16ish or more people, or 6 rounds with over 100.

-you could face a very bad matchup by chance. Especially first round when unlucky “anti-lists” haven’t been filtered out yet.

-your dice could go super cold at some important time. Like say a game end roll.

Swiss tournaments are full of their own randomness above and beyond the game itself. Just because you didn’t come in first doesn’t mean you aren’t the strongest player there, and vice versa if you do. If you come in 1st at a 6 round 100 man Swiss, it doesn’t mean you beat 99 people. It means you beat 6, and the tournament style assumes that you were also better and/or luckier than the other 93.

A good example is Jon Finkel of magic fame. At one point I remember reading he had an alarmingly high rate of 25% of getting to top 8 in pro tours, which is fantastically high.
One of the best players (arguably the best, with only Kai Budde giving competition to that title) in the game still scrubs out here and there. That’s the nature of Swiss tournaments.

Just from my long experience with magic Swiss tourneys, it’s my general estimation that ANYONE in the top 25% overall could’ve come in first if cards/dice had fallen a bit different, or a couple matchups were switched.

Sure, all of that is absolutely true, but you’re missing the point: if a list has NEVER won first place at a tournament of any size that I’m aware of, that gives a significant amount of credence to the view that it’s not all that powerful.

A list failing to win a given tournament means nothing; a list consistently failing to win any tournaments probably means something.

@Reece: You should be conservative here and nerf the bikes. The vote is basically 50/50. You say that you always go the way of making the game most fun for all. I’m willing to bet more people will have fun if they are nerfed.

So if the vote is 50/50 it should favor the one that you personally want? That’s not how voting works. While it was close, there was a winner. Besides, nerfing statlines and purchase options for squads is a bad precedent to set.

We may, we may not. It depends on the community. There were things we thought would be too much that weren’t, and we never came back around to them. Actually, the only thing we’ve come back around to was Invis, and that is because we kept getting asked to do something about it.

When we do revisit jetbikes there is always the option to adjust the points cost instead. 20 Points for Heavy Weapons instead of 10. It might feel like a more comfortable change to some, though I would prefer the 1 in 3 option you offered.

Should we nerf Eldar Jetbikes?
Yes No

If we nerf Eldar Jetbikes how?
1 in 3 HV
20 point HV
Take away relentless
Other

We will be running those questions in our own exit polls starting in July.

Good stuff Reece. I will say this, I was one of those you mention in the “leave the D table alone” camp who chose it not because I like it the way it is, but rather I do t like the change you offered and feel there are better alternatives to changing the D out there. As such, and I hate to say it, compared to the alternatives (in my eyes) leaving the D alone was a better choice. Overall good poll and I feel it does provide a modicum of balance and leveling that is needed. The jet bike results in particular are very interesting.

They will revote after wargamescon or BAO I am sure. Hopefully though people will adapt like they did with wavserpents, tau ignore cover spam and all the rest of the overly efficient options that have come and gone — instead of just banning it out of fear.

Any horde army without various protections, los cover, scout, infiltration, etc.

So same as its been since 6ed.

To make it clear though, I don’t disagree that the scat bikes are stupid move by GW. Just debating how much more stupid then where things already are. Or put another way, where do we stop the bans — stuff that already adjusted the meta or just the new things that haven’t already adjusted the meta

It won’t matter. Scatbikes shoot so much high strength fire per point of cost, that they blow away specialists, like AP 3 bolters rapid firing, but from 36″ away, on an EJB profile. Even in 3+ cover, it’s like being rapid fired on every turn, with no cover. So blob squads with 4++ saves, forget it.

LOS blocking a 36″ range unit is HARD, especially one that’s so fast. Infiltration, most armies can’t get massed infiltrate, and scout in many cases won’t help too much.

The balance between a horde and a firebase is disrupted when the firebase is on one of the most mobile platforms, and has a 36″ range gun.

I am happy with all the results except the scatbikes one. I have yet to play against Eldar since the new codex drop, but I don’t need to play against them to know that the new scatbikes are going to be extremely powerful. To me it’s already bad enough that we are going to deal with the fastest objective secured unit in the game with jink saves (with cheap easy shrouding psychic powers), that the s6 shooting spam on top of it just brings it over the top. Due to how even the voting was, i am sure most events will rule against the proposed change anyway for fear of alienating Eldar players. Damn, it will be hard for me to not concede pre-deployment if i find a scatspam eldar list with a DE archon (+ wwp) and wraithguard right across the table from me.

I’ve played against it, it’s complete bulllshit. Sounds like you don’t play many high level games yourself. I assure you, I do. Probably more games in a week than you play in a month. And I for one can’t believe that we are going to stand for another edition of this cheesy no brain garbage. Serpents were playing the game on easy mode. Jet bikes, while rounding out a different role, are just as abusive if not more so than wave serpents.

I have played against and with them in play testing. Playing against my roommate who barely plays, I won a couple by skin of teeth, and lost a couple by wide margins. That’s a clueless newbie running them against a tourney player.

When we switched and I ran them, it was like I turned on a god mode cheat. I was never in the slightest danger of losing any game.

I can tell you flat out, that if I play someone of equal skill to myself, (like a clone or something) and one of us is running eldar, that guy will win with probably 80% win rate or higher, depending on the opposing army.

Some of us just want the game to be a little bit balanced and give both players a roughly even chance at winning, instead of just having tournaments of eldar and eldar speed bumps of various flavors.

I am so pleased that the community voted logically as regards to the jet bike issue. Like it or not, there is no empirical proof that they’re overpowered until we can get data from several major tournaments. Proposing to pick on and nerf one apparently overpowered unit in a game with many over-powered units – I imagine rubbed many the wrong way and would have given precedent to many knee-jerk ITC ‘homebrew nerfs’ that would have divided the community in an unpleasant way. Yay!

Haha! I was just teasing too. I realize it came off a bit snarky. Eldar have been my long time army since 2nd edition and I have well over 10 000 points of them, which includes many jetbikes. I couldn’t help myself from buying two boxes of new ones though – they are such sleek and mean looking machines.

Empirically, they put out more firepower than anything else in the game on a point for point basis.

The closest comparison is Broadsides who have a much smaller threat range. In addition Jetbikes benefit more from psychic support than Broadsides, and come from a codex with many psychic support options, while Tau has no psychic support options, thought buffmander is similar.

Letting it run its course mainly results in a lower event attendance and some people buying 60 Scat bikes getting pissed when the nerf comes to pass.

That is the way the majority voted though, so we both get to see a new meta develop at ITC events. Scat bikes, and things that can survive or Kill scatbikes. Also a social Dynamic. Eldar players and people who HATE Eldar players because they are deemed WAC A-holes.

The social dynamic is the more frustrating thing because seeing local Eldar players ashamed to play the army that they’ve played for years is just sad.

I must say, I like most of these and think look out sirs on stomps is awesome. but honestly the d table was weird, kind of feel like removing the 6 option would of been better. As for scatbikes…. I have faced them 3 times from 2 very good eldar players and have beaten them everytime. not really buying their dominance. keep it up guys!

“I was surprised at how many folks voted for the unmodified D table. I thought this one would be a blow out, actually. I would guess that that represents a number of players that have not really been exposed to it before. Or, they simply preferred that to the only alternative presented and would have liked to see some other type of modified D table.”

I would guess, since we’re guessing, that it represents a number of players that HAVE been exposed to it before, and find it no more game-breaking than anything else.

The ‘Modified D’ table presented in the poll is one of the worst of what was floated as a proposal. D2 Wounds/HP, Cover and Invulnerable Saves for the entire chart…an insult to D. It has nothing in common with D anymore–call it something else (and not ‘D-Lite’).

Am I correct that rolling a ‘6’ is now worse than the 6th edition Distortion Rule? No Instant Death? Completely unnecessary.

Well I think the issue is that the modified table is such a drastic change… D2 wounds is laughable, especially with no threat of ID. Now rippers are more afraid of Plasma cannons than a Revenant Titans Pulsar… Similarly, Ogryns and Tyranid warriors can laugh off Destroyer weapons but sill cower in fear to non-destroyer weapons… Which just feels totally wrong.

I really wish there was an option to keep the table mostly the same with a toned down 6 result, more than just the option of totally unchanged vs totally gutted. The ironic thing is that D-Scythes, which seemed to have been complained about the most, are the least affected by the nerf itself.

C’mon, Reece, don’t pretend that it’s a trivial change. It means that lots of models, not just shitty ones, don’t suffer ID from the hits- it matters for Wraiths, it matters for TWC, it matters for Chapter Masters, it matters for Broadsides, it matters for tons of guys that are relevant to the format. Don’t just shrug this off with no justification at all.

Yeah Reece gotta agree with everyone above. The proposed change to D was just a swing too far in the wrong direction and needing D to the point of being too weak. It’s why I voted to keep the D the same. Now if a more balanced D option was presented, possibly just toning down the 6 result (I don’t remember which one I favored the most a few weeks ago when everyone proposed the various changes) but i do know the one yall settled on for the poll was too meh.

For the jetbike results and other questions that change rules, i’m more inclined to think a large majority is required to change a rule, not just over 50%. So in this case if the “nerf” jetbikes camp had just enough votes for a slim win, i would still hope things wouldn’t change.

But it’s your show, that my nickel in the well. Lookign forward to the ITC event near me in November, The Renegade Open!

So I have a question about the 1 formation in the war host detachment. I know the itc says you can’t take multiples of the same formations but if there are multiple things inside that formation like the wraith host that Is a wraith lord or a hemlock or a wraith knight can you take multiple of those thingswithout taking doubles of the same models?

I’m definitely glad to see the Str D changes and allowance of a third detachment; Stomp being altered and CtA still banned I’m less happy with, but it’s things I can live with. I think leaving Scatter Bikes as-is is the right call for the time being, although we may want to change them later on in the season depending on how stuff goes.

Reece,
Now that modified Ranged D is in and the Jetbikes unmodified, do you think the next time you revisit the format you would consider looking again at some of the ignores cover vehicles like the Typhon. I know that the same general feeling that surrounded getting 6’d on D also is attached to AP3 ignores cover, but it is a nice response to death stars and jet bikes. Maybe a cover -2 or some type of mod? Anyways, something to consider for next time.

I get what you’re saying and agree about bikes and D, but seeing how the AP3 ignores cover units are not allowed in ITC and modified charts are becoming more accepted there could be an opportunity to get more toys on the table

I’m not sure what Stalker you mean? I was specifically referring to the Typhon and Legacy of Keylak from Imperial Armour 2 – large blast marker LOWs. I know there is ignores cover ap3 in the game (heldrakes etc) , so i should have been more specific – sorry for confusion

The D table effects all factions, including future releases.
From what I’ve read, a lot of Eldar players who may have been co-opted into voting for this, were just furious at having their jetbikes picked out for a nerf.

While I am a sample size of one, I am an Eldar player who enjoys Saim-Hann lists who voted for the nerf. I think that the fact that 2 out of 3 jetbikes have a weapon range of 12″ is an important balancing factor for the unit.

Could someone explain to me why Elysian D99 is not legal, despite it fitting the previous version of the ITC rules’ criteria of being a Forge World army printed after the release of 7th Edition? Its exclusion is utterly bizarre to me.

I think it is good to see if the community feels something needs to change, then poll everyone again to determine what kinds of changes are required. It would paint a clearer picture of what people felt was appropriate.

m glad that the bikes didn’t change as I don’t think units should be specifically changed as this will set a bad trend. A light version of this to me is kharn the betrayer. He is immune to force which on fine, but if he gets hit my a thunderhammer (which would insta kill him being double strength) with the force special rule the. Kharn doesn’t suffer the ID rule…

I think his point is generalisations are bad. I actually agree with him, you can’t characterise everyone voting against the bike change, in the way he did. There are genuine concerns around nerfing a single unit.

Hey broster. Broski. Bromeister. Brosephina. Broman. Just wanted to let you know, it’s possible to use sarcasm, humor, or other acerbic conversational devices without adding a smiley (such as that “:p” you were talking about, which is often called a “smiley” on these here internets because many of them resemble smiling faces) to your text.

Just letting you know, since you seem to be intentionally missing the point!

That’s several people now that have commented on your condescending tone, which seem to echo through most of your posts. You may think you’re being funny, but most of your posts just come off as being shrewd. if you know more about this game than others, why not be encouraging?

I don’t think all responses deserve a polite answer. For someone who is being flippant, condescending, or outright insulting already, being polite to them is very rarely going to evoke a thoughtful and intelligent response- it’s much more likely that they will inform you that “ur fgt”.

I have plenty of non-condescending posts written in response to people who make meaningful arguments and argue a viable position. But it turns out lots of people don’t do either of those things, and trying to compose a logical chain of causation against someone whose fundamental argument is “I bet everyone but me is a WAAC cheater asshole with loaded dice” or “see Reece is trying to steal all our money with his evil schemes” is a lost cause.

I voted against changing jetbikes, but niot for any of the reasons you listed. I played against them, I also think they are over the top. Heck, they may ruin the tourney scene.

BUT- I am philosophically against changing a codex in a vacuum without a general rule. I feel breaking this tenent before two or three major tournies are played would be a mistake. So I’m willing to play a shitty few games at BAO and vote afterwards.

It’s the price we pay to limit any future knee jerk reactions- although let’s hope we never have such an obvious looking need for a nerf again. It would have been a shame, for example, if the community has nerfed Knights down to 0-1 without ever having gone through a few tournaments to see where they shook out.

Reece, without having asked the actual poll takers what army they play, you can’t really estimate what percentage of them were Eldar players. It’s entirely possible that, given they had a “horse in the race”, Eldar players voted more than non-Eldar player.

This is very true. Also given how the turnout was literally a katana slash down the middle, you should definitely flag this as an “ask again in a few months” thing, once people have gotten their scatbikes all done up and start murdering with them.

I also hope to see it on the wargamescon exit poll so we can see some data from actual tourney attendees, as opposed to anonymous internet votes.

Don’t all of the players “have a horse in the race,” to use that expression? Many, even most players, have more than one army and Eldar is one of the more popular factions (after SM and maybe Tyranids/Orks) so I imagine a pretty high percentage of the players would “have” to register as Eldar. And what’s to even stop someone from lying?

Moreover, how would you tell which is less biased? The Eldar player (who, in your view, is voting to presumably make their army stronger) or the non-Eldar player (who is voting on an army they know little or nothing about and presumably want to make weaker, since the change won’t hurt them)?

One could argue that Eldar players have slightly more interest in a vote actively targeting their codex. More horses, I suppose. You could also ask to identify a “primary” faction, or just whether or not people have Eldar.

I’m not saying it would be perfect – people lie on surveys. This is known, and unavoidable. I’m not saying it would be perfect, just objecting to Reece taking a close vote as evidence of something it’s not.

1: Using the 2012 data from 5th (which might as well be a different game) to justify the change is BS.
2: Nerfing bikes like that would have split the community front line gaming has worked so hard to build.
3: If your going to vote on nerfing bikes what about voting on nerfing rerolling wounds with cents or summing both of those arguably break the game just as much as bikes?

Ha that is funny…in the grim darkness of the forty first millenium….the only game that shall exist is Reecehammer 40K…Rules to change hourly base on the most recent digital release, WD release, stealth digitial change, etc.

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The Cult of Personality
I know your anger
I know your dreams
I’ve been trying to make 40K everything I want it to be

You should actually do another poll as that percentage amount is statistically to low, to say ” Let’s go with this change”. Its actually low enough to say ” Statistically, when calculating human error.. we need to repoll” . I think the confidence integral is not taken into account at all in that.

I mean you basically just said ” The Results are close enough to require another recount”.

Like accounting for human error even if your error rate is like 2% that’s still to close to actually get a demonstratively reflective polling.

Unless there’s reason to think that the original poll as inaccurate, how would that change anything significantly? If the community is strongly divided, it will continue to be strongly divided on the subject the next time around.

It’s not that a poll is inaccurate it’s that when doing polling / studies, when you have results like that then you can’t actually say that people want the change because it’s within a margin of error % or confidence integer.

Nothings 100% , it’s why in polling you’ll ask the same question 2 different ways. So that you can reduce a margin of error. That’s all.

It’s just how polling works, you always have a margin of error. If your results are equal but fall in your margin of error even 1% . You should repoll.

Mmmm. Understandable, if you’re assuming the victory was just a small artifact of the voting and not really significant (which, I haven’t run the i on it, but I’m pretty sure it’s not.) But wouldn’t that necessitate at least TWO additional polls- because if the second one goes the other way by a small margin (which it is likely to), that STILL wouldn’t give you anything meaningful.

I think in this case the poll data would be much better interpreted as “there is not a strong consensus as to whether we should change Windriders,” and I think the proper course of action in that case is to not change them.

It’s within a low enough error % to not say either way. Personally I don’t think it should have even been asked as a question. 1. You invalidate models made by players. For example, the gentlemen who builds his Windriders with all Scatter lasers, then he wants to play ITC he can’t he has to somehow remove them. 2. It’s a direct change to a Army Listing. Not a weapon profile, an actual army listing printed by the company and provided for on the sprue 3. It sets a bad precedent/ Slippery Slope argument of ” If this argument works for making this unit worse” Why can’t you make units “better”. Tit for Tat and all that. 4. There has been 0 amount of playtesting in regards to this change. Not enough to make a statistical difference. There was “playtesting” with D weapons which is why it’s a justifiable change.

D weapon alteration is too much! D2 wounds with no instant death…Imagine this, titan shoots its gun which is size of a tank on a tyranid warrior….2 wounds. Then one of his friends gets a krak missile in his face…instant death. We may just change the CtA back to where it was because D change is just as unfluffy now.

My idea before which I think many would agree on!

Vehicles/Infantry/Monstrous Creatures etc roll with -1 on this table (d-scythes roll with -2). Superheavy and gargantuans roll on this table normally without penalty.

The fact that it doesn’t cause instant death actually makes it statistically a worse choice over normal weaponry that does cause instant death and in fact makes it kind of worse than the older Distort Rules, that’s kind of a ridiculous change.

I would have liked to see D3 hull points/wounds on a roll of 6. I have only had a couple games with the new changes so my humble opinion may change in the future.

At least my Wraith units are playable now. There was no way I would have played with the unmodified D table. I think the main reason people voted for the unmodified table was because the nerf was a tad too much.

In my opinion it’s not far off though. They do still do double damage essentially.

◦Ranged D weapons use the following damage table, replacing that listed in the rule book. Note: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below.
◦Roll of a 1: No damage occurs.
◦Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D2 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit.
◦Roll of a 6: Target model takes 2 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or D2 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed. This attack never inflicts instant death, regardless of the target model’s toughness.

As I read it, only on a roll of six there is no instant death because of strength 10. So on a 2-5 it inflicts instant death, if the strength is high enough. That means, a result of 6 is different, but not necessarily better.

I like it that way, because I dislike the combination of instant death and no saves allowed.

I would like to thank Reese and company for getting this poll out, tallied, and posted so quickly. Whether you agree or not, there is now a baselined identification and approach for these issues. Hopefully this will let folks move on and roll dice rather than get mired in arguing about them.

Practical question: maybe it’s obvious, but how does Look out Sir work with a 6 result from Stomp? Unlike normal hits and wounds, the result apies to each model touched by the blast marker – there is no allocation. As a simple example, in a unit comprised of one IC and one infantry that suffers 2 wounds where the IC is closest to the origin of the wounds, ordinarily if the LoS roll is successful the wounds will get “passed” on. With Stomp, each model is supposed to be removed. If LoS is applied in the same way, it would seem that one “removal” gets lost? Just seems really confusing and like it doesn’t work properly without extra rules…

Seems simple enough to me. All the models under a template that rolls the 6 are removed from play other then characters, Then any characters under the template get to roll there look out sirs as normal, and then the nearest model to the character is removed unless he false the look out sire

Thematically that makes sense. The model taking the blow would have to be some model outside the range of the blast marker. The issue is, I don’t believe there are rules under Stomp or LoS that permit splitting up the removal mechanic or dealing with LoS. I am fine with the result of the poll, I just think FLG needs to provide some clarity on the rules interaction. Perhaps I’m just being dense (not the first time that’s happened), but it would be great if someone could post the relevant rules and show how it works by RAW.

All this is fine…but my issue lies with armies of objective secured knights with a weapon for every situation being allowed, yet all other armies limited to one specific LOW…iv played against these new knights and am here to tell you not many armies can stand up to 5 knights charging with 5 D attacks on turn two….then stomps. I am really hoping another vote is called on the knights….more than one is just to much…armies of them are just silly.